1. U.S. Army Chief of Staff,
General Eric Shinseki in
October 99 stated the Army’s
URGENT, IMMEDIATE need for
Interim Brigade Combat Teams
(IBCTs) globally deployed by
USAF aircraft using:
1. USAF C-130 transportable
vehicles
2. “Medium-weight” as per SSI
Aeromotorization report; 4-6
per USAF C-17
3. Vehicles available NOW
4. Army assumes it must buy
new vehicles to meet these
requirements
2. “STRIKE 1!”
No refuelling facilities here: C-130s
must carry adequate fuel to return to
base
However, the LAV-III 8x8 wheeled armored car selected just
before November Presidential election results is NOT C-130
tactically air-transportable*
32,000 pounds C-130 payload limit for forward landing strips
- 37, 796 pounds combat loaded LAV-III
_________________________________
(+) LAV-III 5, 796 pounds too heavy for C-130s
*U.S. Army/DOD LAV-III specifications: www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2000/001117-D-0000C-001.jpg
U.S. Army TRANSCOM C-130 air transport specifications :www.tea.army.mil/dpe/Aircraft.htm#C130
3. It's Still Fuzzy Math I
Tell Ya!
“STRIKE 2!” Even a M113-type
tracked AFV with turret
is a tight fit in a C-130!
LAV-III’s 78.7392”+ height with 39” 105mm Low-Profile turret is 117”+ and
thus too tall* to fit inside the C-130’s 102” high limit; (+) C4I, AT, FS
variant attachments heights must be added, too
78.7392”+ high LAV-III chassis is larger than LAV-I
39” LPT 105mm gun
____________________________________
M113A4 LAV-III
117.7392”+ LAV-III MGS
102” C-130 roof limit
LAV-III w/105mm
_________________
LPT
15.7392”+ too high
LAV-III MGSs are too high to roll-on/off from C-130s; vehicle will need extensive and costly ($55
million allocated so far) redesign to somehow fit under C-130 roofs
*ASCOD w/105mm LPT: www.army-technology.com/projects/ascod/specs.html
4. “STRIKE 2” continued!
LAV-III’s 78”+ height, makes it incapable of parachute airdrop
from C-130s due to tip-off curb requirements to not strike tail
when rolling off rear ramp; more compact tracked vehicles
meet this requirement as shown above; M551Sheridan retired
in ‘97 and not replaced as promised!
- LAV-25s in Army service borrowed from USMC (1989-91)
had to have all 8 tires deflated to be C-130 airdropped
- 78”+ LAV-III chassis larger than LAV-I based LAV-25s
________________________________
LAV-IIIs are too high to parachute airdrop from C-130s in roll-off condition;
vehicle type will not meet 82d Airborne Division’s requirements for a parachute-
deliverable armored fighting vehicle to replace combat-proven M551 Sheridan
5. “STRIKE 2” continued!
LAV-III’s combat loaded weight, 37, 796 pounds and 273 inch
length, limits only 3 being carried per C-17, not the 4-6 of a
“Medium” weight vehicle
3 x LAV-IIIs per C-17
2-3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles per C-17
________________________________
0 net gain in air transportability
improvement for U.S. Army
global responsibilities
LAV-III is a LARGE, HEAVY vehicle requiring similar airlift
demands as existing BFVs; U.S. Army is still difficult to air-deploy!
6. “STRIKE 3!” First LAV-III not to be delivered until half-way
through 2002;
LAV-IIIs are NOT available NOW, “off-the-
shelf”, MGS variant cannot fit under C-130 roof
unless major redesign work/funds expended
04/2002 First LAV-III delivered
04/2003 First Brigade fully-equipped
04/2004 First Brigade operationally ready
_______________________________
U.S. ARMY URGENT REQUIREMENTS FOR TODAY NOT MET!
NO CAPABILITY FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS!
Production rate just 0.85 LAV-IIIs per day
www.southam.com/windsorstar/wheels/000905/722279.html
DESPITE $4 BILLION DOLLAR PRICE, U.S. ARMY NOT TRANSFORMED!
7. “STRIKE 1”: LAV-IIIs are NOT
USAF C-130 transportable
vehicles
“STRIKE 2”: LAV-IIIs are NOT
“Medium-weight” as per SSI
Aeromotorization report; 4-6
per USAF C-17
“STRIKE 3”: LAV-IIIs are NOT
available NOW
“LAV-III is OUT!”
QUESTION?
Must the U.S. Army spend $4
BILLION FOR NEW vehicles to
meet these requirements?????
8. The 21st Century
Environment
• Urbanization • Increased Access to
• Ethnic & Religious Technology
Conflict • Increased U.S. Reliance on
• Asymmetric Conflict Force Projection
• Simultaneous SASO • Reduced Warning Time
Operations • Joint, Combined, Multi-
• Weapons Agency Operations
Proliferation/WMD • Force Protection an
Imperative
U.S. Army Forces Must Be…
U.S. Army Forces Must Be…
Responsive --Deployable --Mobile --Versatile --Combat
Responsive Deployable Mobile Versatile Combat
Effective
Effective
9. “THIRD BASE”! M113A3/4s are available NOW for
units to be made combat-ready as U.S. Army
European Command has done with its Immediate
Ready Force (IRF); BILLIONS SAVED can be used to
upgrade M113A3/4-M8 AGS type vehicles to exceed
IBCT requirements
Remote
weapon
station and Rubber, single-piece “Band-
squad Tracks” for low-vibration,
leader low-noise, no maintenance,
displays no HETs, light-on-third-
world-roads, high road
speeds
Applique armors to defeat
Rocket Propelled Grenades
(RPGs), autocannon fire
without cross-country
mobility loss, gunshields
10. “BASES LOADED”! M113A3/4s can be heli-
transported by CH-47Ds
101st Airborne (Air
Assault) Division
Maximizing tracked vehicle
weight/volume efficiency, Army
CH-47D/F Chinook helicopters
can air-transport M113A3/4s
over mines, obstacles, avoiding
road ambushes as the British
Army did with its Scimitar light
tanks to be the first NATO force
into Kosovo in 1999.
British Army Air-Mech into
Kosovo
FACILITATES 3D TACTICAL BATTLE MANEUVERS!
11. “SLUGGER AT BAT”: M113A3 /4 Infantry
situational awareness, security and
firepower by ability to fight mounted or
dismounted if the situation dictates...
M8 AGS can shoot-on-the-move (LAV-III MGS
must stop to fire) to kill enemy tanks as well as
blast buildings, bunkers, dug-in positions
12. “HE IS A CLUTCH HITTER”:
M113A3/4 M8 AGS Tracked Mobility
to advance in the face of enemy fire
Tracks
overcome
fire and
obstacles...
LAV-III’s
Rubber-tired
Wheels
vulnerable!
“Run-flats” at 5mph for 5
miles no life insurance in
combat
13. “HE HAS BEAT THE ODDS”:
TRACKED VEHICLES ARE FAR
Tracks pull MORE 2D CROSS-COUNTRY
wheels out MOBILE THAN WHEELED
from the ARMORED CARS TO AVOID
mud…save ROAD-SIDE AMBUSHES, MINES,
them from road
ambush... OBSTACLES!
Tracks swim, fight, move
by land, sea or air!
14. “WHEN THE GAME IS ON THE LINE”:
TRACKED VEHICLES ARE ACTUALLY
LIGHTER AND 28% MORE WEIGHT/VOLUME
EFFICIENT FOR AIR-TRANSPORT THAN
WHEELED ARMORED CARS!
(Official U.S. Army Fort Knox power point slide)
15. Conclusions
• An Initial tracked Air-Mech-Strike IBCT composed of M113A3/4s, M8 AGSs and Wiesels have
superior air-deployability characteristics to an all-LAV-III armored car IBCT. AMS IBCTs are
significantly more deployable than AOE or Force XXI Divisional Brigades using all-heavy, 33-
70-ton M1/M2s.
• The Tracked BCT provides more combat power per aircraft sortie due to greater vehicle
cube efficiency than LAV-IIIs
• Tracked Vehicles Have Greater Tactical Mobility and Agility; Wheeled LAV-IIIs have slightly
higher range and highway speed if metal/rubber tracks governed, not if band-tracked
• M113A3/4 Infantry dismount capability exceeds wheeled LAV-III armored cars
• The M8 AGS is “Own the Night”, shoot-on-the-move, capable light tank with a significant
advantage in ready rack ammunition over wheeled LAV-III MGS with LPTs
• The M113A3/4, M8 AGS Modular Armor System provides greater crew protection than
wheeled LAV-III bolt on armor w/o mobility loss
• Production Costs of the M113A3/4, M8 AGS, Wiesel are less than wheeled LAV-IIIs...
• O&S Cost comparisons between M113A3/4s M8 AGSs, Wiesels and wheeled LAV-IIIs show
band-tracked vehicles are cheaper to operate
16. “THE TYING AND WINNING RUNS ARE
ON BASE”: Tactics, Techniques and
Procedures already in place to support
M113A3/4 and M8 Armored Gun System
(AGS) operations
FM 17-18 8 March 1994 FM 7-7 March 1985
www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi- www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7-
bin/atdl.dll/fm/17-18/f1718.htm 7/toc.htm
Read them online at the U.S. Army Library web site!
17. Conclusions
• An Initial tracked Air-Mech-Strike IBCT composed of M113A3/4s, M8 AGSs and Wiesels have
superior air-deployability characteristics to an all-LAV-III armored car IBCT. AMS IBCTs are
significantly more deployable than AOE or Force XXI Divisional Brigades using all-heavy, 33-
70-ton M1/M2s.
• The Tracked BCT provides more combat power per aircraft sortie due to greater vehicle
cube efficiency than LAV-IIIs
• Tracked Vehicles Have Greater Tactical Mobility and Agility; Wheeled LAV-IIIs have slightly
higher range and highway speed if metal/rubber tracks governed, not if band-tracked
• M113A3/4 Infantry dismount capability exceeds wheeled LAV-III armored cars
• The M8 AGS is “Own the Night”, shoot-on-the-move, capable light tank with a significant
advantage in ready rack ammunition over wheeled LAV-III MGS with LPTs
• The M113A3/4, M8 AGS Modular Armor System provides greater crew protection than
wheeled LAV-III bolt on armor w/o mobility loss
• Production Costs of the M113A3/4, M8 AGS, Wiesel are less than wheeled LAV-IIIs...
• O&S Cost comparisons between M113A3/4s M8 AGSs, Wiesels and wheeled LAV-IIIs show
band-tracked vehicles are cheaper to operate